Grist » Andy Bellattihttp://grist.org
Environmental News, Commentary, AdviceSun, 02 Aug 2015 18:22:31 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/330e84b0272aae748d059cd70e3f8f8d?s=96&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.png » Andy Bellattihttp://grist.org
Opening Pandora’s Lunchbox: Processed foods are even scarier than you thoughthttp://grist.org/food/opening-pandoras-lunchbox-processed-foods-are-even-scarier-than-you-thought/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/food/opening-pandoras-lunchbox-processed-foods-are-even-scarier-than-you-thought/#commentsTue, 26 Feb 2013 13:04:49 +0000http://grist.org/?p=161048]]>You’ve heard of pink slime. You know trans fats are cardiovascular atrocities. You’re well aware that store-bought orange juice is essentially a scam. But, no matter how great of a processed-food sleuth you are, chances are you’ve never set food inside a processing plant to see how many of these products are actually made.
Melanie Warner.

Writer Melanie Warner, whose new exposé-on-the-world-of-processed-foods book, Pandora’s Lunchbox, is out this week, spent the past year and a half doing exactly that. In her quest to explore the murky and convoluted world of soybean oil, milk protein concentrates (a key ingredient in processed cheese), and petroleum-based artificial dyes, she spoke to food scientists, uncovered disturbing regulatory loopholes in food law, and learned just how little we know about many of the food products on supermarket shelves.

After reading Pandora’s Lunchbox, I sent Melanie some burning questions via email. Here is what she had to say:

Q.The term “processed food” is ubiquitous these days. The food industry has attempted to co-opt it by claiming canned beans, baby carrots, and frozen vegetables are “processed foods.” Can you help explain why a Pop-Tart is years away from a “processed food” like hummus?

A. You have to ask yourself, could I make a Pop-Tart or Hot Pocket at home, with all those same ingredients listed on the package? How would you even go about procuring distilled monoglycerides and BHT, for instance?

Yet it is possible to make your own black beans at home by soaking and then cooking them. You could even attempt a rudimentary canning operation to preserve them. You can also make hummus by grinding chickpeas with a few other ingredients like lemon juice. The “processing” these foods go through is minimal and not disfiguring.

Q.Many people are put at ease when government agencies and the food industry state that controversial substances are “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS). Why is this not as comforting as it sounds?

A. The GRAS process, as it’s known, is one of self-regulation. If a food-ingredient company wants to introduce a new additive, they — not the FDA — hire some experts or a consulting firm to make the determination about whether this new ingredient is safe. Sometimes you’ll hear that company X has been awarded “GRAS status” for its new ingredient, but the FDA doesn’t award anything. The agency merely has the option to review what companies tell them.

Except when they don’t. In a glaring regulatory loophole that dates back to 1958, the GRAS system also happens to be voluntary. It’s perfectly legal for companies to keep the FDA in the dark about new additives, and consequently there are some 1,000 ingredients the FDA has no knowledge of whatsoever, according to an estimate done by the Pew Research Center.

So although the FDA seeks to reassure us they are keeping a close watch over our food, the job of rigorously regulating thousands of food additives is simply too big for an underfunded agency. Brominated vegetable oil, for instance, the subject of a well-circulated petition by a 15-year-old in Alabama, was flagged for further study in the ’70s, testing that was never done. And BHA, a “probable carcinogen” according to the Department of Health and Human Services, is still allowed in food.

Q.The food industry has often reacted to nutritional concerns by fortifying nutrients into their products. What did you glean from your research about the way these synthetic vitamins are created, and how are they different from the nutrients intrinsically found in foods?

A. Many of the vitamins we consume, whether in supplements or a box of cereal, come from China. They are produced in enormous factories scattered throughout the eastern half of the country, and these factories account for at least half of all global vitamin production.

Sometimes it’s assumed that vitamin C comes from maybe an orange or vitamin A from a carrot, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Vitamin C starts with a corn ingredient and then undergoes a complex, multi-step bacterial and chemical process. Vitamin A comes from acetylene gas, a chemical derived from petroleum refining.

The most obvious way a nutrient made in Shenyang differs from one engineered by Mother Nature is that nature’s vitamins always come packaged with all sorts of other helpful stuff, like fiber, additional nutrients and antioxidants. And this synergy may be the key to vitamins really helping us stay healthy.

Q.You investigated how soybean oil is made. Can you explain why calling it “natural” is a complete misnomer?

A. It’s not easy getting mass quantities of edible oil from soybeans, which are small, brittle beans containing less than 20 percent oil. First you have to drench them with hexane, a toxic chemical solvent that is known to cause nerve damage in humans. The hexane percolates through the soybeans several times and is then removed from the oil (any residues that remain are small.) After that you have to treat the oil with sodium hydroxide and phosphoric acid, then bleach it with a filter, and deodorize it under heat and an intense vacuum. Then often the oil is hydrogenated or interesterified, allowing it to be more stable for frying or other high-heat conditions. Calling any of this “natural” is a farce.

Not to mention the fact that 93 percent of all soybeans are genetically modified, a technology most people think doesn’t deserve to go anywhere near the word “natural.”

Q.On the topic of dairy, milk protein concentrates are a rather controversial ingredient many people are unaware of. What does the inclusion of milk protein concentrate in a food product say about it?

A. It says that the manufacturer is trying to cut corners and save money, which is understandable since all large publicly traded corporations are constantly under enormous pressure to cut costs. Milk protein concentrate can help replace the cheese that goes into boxed macaroni and cheese or the milk in processed cheese slices. If you see milk protein concentrate in your Greek yogurt it means the manufacturer has skipped the expensive step of straining the yogurt and has added milk protein concentrate, or MPC, to boost the protein levels (they’ve probably also added in some type of starch to thicken the yogurt).

Milk, regardless of what you think of its nutritional merits, is a real food. MPC is not.

A. One word: Snackwells. In the early ’90s, at the zenith of low-fat mania, Kraft introduced these “healthier” cookies. They had only 55 calories per cookie and much of the fat had been taken out (and replaced by emulsifiers, starches, and gums). Eager for a hall pass on guilt, cookie lovers went nuts, buying up multiple packages and probably eating more than they would have otherwise, erasing any calorie reduction advantage. It’s a case that illustrates how “healthier” processed foods often don’t promote health; they just end up confusing people.

All these refurbished, less bad products only keep us tethered to a merry-go-round of inferior choices. The answer is making real food the foundation of our diets.

Filed under: Article, Business & Technology, Food, Living]]>http://grist.org/food/opening-pandoras-lunchbox-processed-foods-are-even-scarier-than-you-thought/feed/0processed foodMelanie Warner. processed foodpandora-bc2Aisle be damned: How Big Food dominates your supermarket choiceshttp://grist.org/food/aisle-be-damned-how-big-food-dominates-your-supermarket-choices/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/food/aisle-be-damned-how-big-food-dominates-your-supermarket-choices/#commentsWed, 16 Jan 2013 12:41:35 +0000http://grist.org/?p=153647]]>It’s no surprise that gigantic, multinational companies own most of the dominant organic brands out there. Big Food’s tentacles stretch far: Just four companies control 80 percent of the beef market, and many competing brands in the snack aisle huddle under the umbrella of the same parent company.
Wenonah Hauter.

But before you put down your (Kellogg-produced) Gardenburger to protest your local cattle ranch, Hauter warns a bigger response is required. “[I]t’s time that we stop demonizing farmers as the chief culprits behind our dysfunctional food system and start addressing the structural issues,” she says.

I recently chatted with Hauter over email about Foodopoly. She talks about how the system got the way it did, and what you can do to fix it:

Q.Give us a snapshot of the history of food-industry consolidation.

A. Just 20 companies produce most of the food eaten by Americans (yes, even organic brands). These companies are so large, they have the economic and political power to dictate food policy, from laws on advertising junk food to children and manipulating nutrition standards to weakening federal pesticide regulations and blocking the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

They have been able to become so large because of the evisceration of antitrust law during the Reagan administration. And since that time, no U.S. president has been willing to tackle the issue of concentration. This is ironic since all of the rhetoric about our economic system revolves around competition in the marketplace, but all public policy drives a frenzy of mergers and acquisitions. This is especially true in the food industry.

Q.What are the prospects for reversing course in the near future?

A. Consolidation is likely to continue and even accelerate over the next few years. Although the pace of mergers stalled during the economic recession, there are signs that merger and acquisition activity has started to pick back up. Just since Thanksgiving, two [food] mega-mergers have been announced. ConAgra is purchasing Ralcorp, the nation’s leading manufacturer of store-brand food, and JBS, the world’s largest meatpacker, is purchasing the second-largest Canadian meatpacker, XL Foods. XL Foods made headlines earlier this year after significant food safety lapses allowed 2.5 million pounds of potentially E. coli-tainted ground beef to enter the marketplace.

Q.What does the ConAgra-Ralcorp merger mean for the food system?

A. The companies only compete head-to-head for a few products (like peanut butter and some frozen dinners), but they compete alongside one another for supermarket shelf space. For example, ConAgra makes a wide range of popcorn snacks (Jiffy Pop, Orville Redenbacher, Fiddle Faddle, and Act II) and half of store-brand pretzels. Ralcorp makes corn and tortilla chips, snack mixes, nearly half of store-brand snack nuts, and two-thirds of store-brand crackers. For a consumer standing in the snack aisle, choosing between different snacks based on price, these are competitors. Unfortunately, federal regulators do not believe that mergers between conglomerates affect consumers unless they compete directly for the same narrowly defined products.

Q.I don’t think most people get that very little of the money we spend on mass-produced foods goes to farmers. How much does a corn farmer get, for instance, when we buy soda made with corn syrup?

A. Tufts University researchers estimate that soft drink companies have saved almost a billion dollars during a nine-year period after deregulation when corn prices were lowered, and that large meat companies saved nearly $4 billion on animal feed between 1997 and 2005. Contrast this to what farmers receive for growing corn. They get 4 to 5 cents from the sale of a box of corn flakes and 2 to 3 cents from the sale of a full-sized bag of corn chips. The corn content of a soda in the form of high-fructose corn syrup nets the farmer 2 cents out of each consumer dollar. Ninety-eight cents goes to the food companies that make, market, and sell soda.

Q.As you mentioned earlier, since the 1980s, a plethora of deregulation has occurred. Is reversing some of that deregulation a plausible goal, or at this point is it more feasible to simply prevent further deregulation?

A. Ultimately, to create a fair and healthy food system we need to build the political power to create commonsense regulations — and enforce them — for food safety and labeling, antitrust policy, biotechnology, and other new technologies used in the food system. This means having our eye on the long-term prize of a regulatory system that really works. Laying out what this ideal regulatory system should look like also creates more political space for achieving short-term goals and mobilizing more people. Activists are really tired of fighting for just the best they can get in the latest fight over some terrible deregulation scheme. We must fight for what we really want.

We are always faced with attempts to weaken the rules that are already on the books, even if they are already inadequate. Food safety is a good example. We have spent the last year battling a proposal from the USDA to privatize the inspection of poultry products and allow much faster line speeds in poultry plants, a move that would put consumer and worker safety at risk. Stopping these current deregulation attempts is not only necessary, but it also helps us to build the political power we will need to eventually fight for better food policies in the future.

Q.What’s your advice to someone beginning to read about these issues who feels overwhelmed by the system?

A. A natural response is to try and “shop better.” That’s important, and as you learn more you may end up questioning some products you’ve been buying for years. But as I say throughout my book, we can’t shop our way out of the problems in the food system.

Find a way to get involved in building a food movement that has the political power to change the rules for our food system. Find a local organization working on food policy in your community or do research on your local officials and how to contact them — then call them up and tell them you expect them to step up on a food issue that matters to you, whether it’s labeling [genetically engineered] foods or passing a better farm bill.

Filed under: Article, Business & Technology, Food]]>http://grist.org/food/aisle-be-damned-how-big-food-dominates-your-supermarket-choices/feed/0boy_grocery_cart_cropWenonah Hauter.Foodopoly_HiResCOVERLet’s put an end to ‘dietary tribalism’http://grist.org/sustainable-food/lets-put-an-end-to-dietary-tribalism/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/sustainable-food/lets-put-an-end-to-dietary-tribalism/#commentsTue, 24 Apr 2012 20:39:55 +0000http://grist.org/?p=94796]]>Every time I’m on social media, I am reminded of a growing trend that worries me — let’s call it dietary tribalism. I use this term to refer to the many fractured groups with conflicting dietary views who, for the most part, don’t realize just how much they have in common.

This recent piece in the New York Times about the “challenges of plant-based eating in a meat-based world” got me thinking, as it described several people’s efforts to adopt a vegan lifestyle and how they were fraught with challenges. Not only did I find this lens problematic (for one, not everyone finds the transition that difficult), but I was struck by how it repeated a familiar, yet inaccurate frame: that one is either a vegan or they’ll eat an entire cow in one sitting.

But it bothered me even more that the comments turned, predictably, into “veganism isn’t natural” vs. “everyone should go vegan.” It was almost the perfect microcosm of what happens in the food world when, rather than discuss issues we have in common, we take sides. All this mud-slinging detracts from a more important conversation.

As I see it, all Americans need to eat more plant-based foods and less processed food, and to be more mindful of where their food comes from, how it is grown, how the people who grow it are treated, and how our dietary choices affect the environment. Instead of these core messages sinking in, dietary tribalism is rampant these days. You have — just to name a few — the Paleo folks, the vegans, the raw vegans, the low-carbers, and the fruitarians. And while there is certainly something productive and empowering about engaging and connecting with like-minded individuals, these groups often turn into echo chambers where everyone agrees and, occasionally, points out how one or more of the other tribes has it all wrong. Meanwhile, Big Food continues churning out a litany of highly processed junk, young children are developing Type 2 diabetes (once known as “adult-onset diabetes”), genetically modified crops — and the pesticides they’re engineered to resist — are seemingly everywhere, and food support for the poor is seriously threatened.

In all our “no, but I have this mountain of research to back me up” statements, we easily overlook one critical unifying point — we’re all seeking out the same goal: health.

Regardless of our views on tofu, raw milk, and coconut oil, most of us who are passionate about nutrition and wellness are not happy with the Standard American Diet or the fact that highly processed and minimally nutritious “foods” are the norm. The fact that millions of Americans have minimal access to fresh, healthy food angers us. We don’t want kids’ food pumped with artificial dyes. We can’t believe it takes more than 30 ingredients to make a Dunkin’ Donuts blueberry cake donut. We are appalled at what the average elementary school student is fed in the cafeteria. We are terrified of Monsanto’s ever-tightening vice grip on global agriculture.

Of course we’re going to have differences. I certainly don’t agree with the schools of thought that consider fiber meaningless or think fruit should only be eaten on its own before noon or the idea that all humans must eat meat. And I laugh a little when I hear people tell me they think all whole grains and beans are “poisons.”

As a nutrition professional, I will set the record straight when I see basic nutrition information grossly distorted, and when I see food companies attempt to pass off highly processed junk as “better for you” simply because, say, the sugar has been replaced with aspartame.

But it’s the back-and-forth mud-slinging between members of different “dietary tribes” that troubles me most. I often imagine all the power that could be harnessed if we stopped and joined forces on some key issues, such as: getting food dyes and trans fat out of our food supply, demanding that the presence of genetically modified organisms and artificial hormones (at the very least) be labeled, ridding schools of nutritionally empty foods, and bringing more access to healthy foods in “food deserts.”

The past few weeks have seen the “pink slime” debacle, the arsenic in chicken feed horror, another crack down at a giant egg facility, and various food recalls (sushi tuna “scrape” being the latest). These are the issues that should awaken us from our dietary bubbles and get us thinking about the bigger picture. And yet, we are often told to pick one food system issue and privilege it over all others, rather than make space for multiple, complex possibilities.Takethis recent Freakonomics video, for instance, which asks: “Does Eating Local Hurt The Environment?” It argues that eating less meat is more important than eating local, rather than making a place for both approaches.

Coalition politics are often the key to paradigm shifts. And it’s more than possible to disagree with someone on nutrition issues and still have some common goals. Who, after all, can claim to be against a better food system? Now, more than ever, the grass-fed beef advocates and the tempeh fans need to be sitting at the same table.

Filed under: Food, Locavore, Sustainable Food]]>http://grist.org/sustainable-food/lets-put-an-end-to-dietary-tribalism/feed/0girls food fightgirls food fightBig Dairy’s latest smear tactichttp://grist.org/food/big-dairys-latest-smear-tactic/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/food/big-dairys-latest-smear-tactic/#commentsFri, 17 Feb 2012 12:45:30 +0000http://grist.org/?p=82625]]>There was a time, not too long ago, when American’s milk options were limited to various forms of cow’s milk (i.e. full-fat, reduced-fat, skim, lactose-free). But times have changed. Soy was the first non-dairy milk to “go mainstream” in the mid 1990s, and you can find “milk” varieties including almond, coconut, hazelnut, hemp, oat, and sunflower seed on supermarket shelves,

Much like an only child who is the center of attention until a sibling comes along, Big Dairy has started to lash out. “Alternative milks” are no longer relegated to the vegan world; many vegetarians and omnivores also purchase and consume plant-based milks. This is bad news for Big Dairy (a.k.a. The California Milk Processor Board).

Behold their latest campaign — “Real Milk Comes From Cows” (tagline: “many imitations, still no equal”). The idea, apparently, is to point out all the ways in which plant-based milks have cooties. One of their inane recent ads can be seen in the screenshot below:

Click for a larger version.

Coconut milk is described as “spooky” for looking so “real,” or similar to cow’s milk. Hazelnut milk is supposed to creep us out because of the “stuff on the bottom,” Almond milk is dissed for having a “funky” color, and soy milk is unveiled as a product that doesn’t come from a cow (when did it ever claim to?).

This campaign wants to sell the idea that only dairy milk is “real.” Other milks, we are supposed to believe, are “not natural” and have long ingredient lists with questionable ingredients. Now, for the fun part: pointing out how misguided, inaccurate, and illogical this campaign is.

Carrageenan — a seaweed extract used to impart a creamy mouth feel to some commercial plant milks — is highlighted in this campaign as a sketchy ingredient. Its safety was called into question after a 2001 literature review in Environmental Health Perspectives. In 2003, the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives, which had declared carrageenan safe in 1998, but reopened the case after that 2001 literature review, reaffirmed that carrageenan was safe for consumption [PDF]. Regardless, carrageenan is not present in all commercial plant milks. As reader Brent points out, carrageenan is sometimes in dairy products, too (i.e. heavy cream).

Carob bean gum, guar gum, and xanthan gum are also pointed out, seemingly to show how “artificial” these plant milks are. The first two gums are made by simply dehusking and milling respective beans into a powder. Xanthan gum, meanwhile, is the end result of sugar fermentation. They are worlds apart from chemical additives, artificial sweeteners, or artificial dyes. And, as with carrageenan, not all plants milk contain these gums.

The bottle of “real milk” in this campaign contains skim milk. Come again? Now, I’d say “Real milk” is what comes straight from the cow — and it ain’t skim.

While the dairy industry point to the “weirdness” of hazelnut milk’s “stuff at the bottom.” Talk to any dairy purist and they will tell you that “real milk” is non-homogenized (aka, “the cream rises to the top”). So, if anything, real milk doesn’t have a uniform look. But, remember, this is Big Dairy. This is not about a small farmer who produces non-homogenized organic milk from pastured cows. This is CAFO-made, corn and grain-fed milk from cows that, very likely, are treated with hormones and antibiotics.

You can see more of their desperate attacks on plant milks in this TV spot, titled “Shake.”

Big Dairy is clearly afraid. Once the lone shining star, it now has no option but to coexist among others that are rising in popularity. It’s worthy of a screenplay; one that showcases the plummeting fall from grace of a once-renowned A-lister. It may be time to start penning Dairy Dearest …

Filed under: Article, Food]]>http://grist.org/food/big-dairys-latest-smear-tactic/feed/0real-milk-comes-from-cows_cropmilk_smear_fullNever mind the meat — worry about eating enough plantshttp://grist.org/food/never-mind-the-meat-worry-about-eating-plants/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/food/never-mind-the-meat-worry-about-eating-plants/#commentsMon, 13 Feb 2012 12:57:52 +0000http://grist.org/?p=81037]]>This post is part of Protein Angst, a series on the environmental and nutritional complexities of high-protein foods. Our goal is to publish a range of perspectives on these very heated topics. Add your feedback and story suggestions here.Most people erroneously think proper nutrition is mainly about vitamins and minerals, but there is a whole other world within the plant kingdom: phytonutrients. Photo: MJM

By and large, the most environmentally friendly dietary decision one can make is to eat less animal protein (see deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse-gas emissions, etc). But for many, the notion of eschewing — or significantly cutting back on — meat, eggs, and dairy brings up nutritional concerns. As I see it, not only are those concerns usually unfounded, they should pale in comparison to the question of getting enough plant-based foods.

Let’s begin with protein. Here’s something most people don’t know: Barring oils and some fruits, there is protein in almost every food. Yes, that includes broccoli, spinach, and potatoes. Most people are surprised to learn that a cup of cooked oatmeal offers as much protein as an egg, and an almond butter sandwich on whole grain bread provides 15 grams of protein (around a quarter of a day’s recommendation for a 160-pound male). To determine your protein requirement, divide your weight in pounds by 2.2, and then multiply that number by 0.8. You can, of course, surpass that figure.

You’ll hear lots of talk about “complete” versus “incomplete” proteins, but I consider that concept irrelevant and outdated. It goes something like this: Complete proteins contain all essential amino acids (“essential” meaning our bodies don’t produce them, so we need to get them from food); incomplete ones have very low amounts of — or lack — an essential amino acid. Meat, poultry, and fish are complete proteins. While there are some plant-based complete proteins like amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa, and soy, the vast majority is “incomplete.”

Incomplete proteins are only a concern if someone eats exclusively from one food group (i.e. nothing but potatoes, or nothing but bread) for extended periods of time. Luckily, eating from more than one food group is not only possible, it’s what most of us crave. You would be hard pressed to find someone who won’t naturally, throughout the course of the day, consume food from more than one food group. Even if you subsist on nothing but peanut butter sandwiches for a week you are getting all the essential amino acids (legumes and grains are two different food groups, and it just so happens that the essential amino acids that are low in bread are high in legumes, and vice versa).

Frances Moore Lappé, who popularized the idea of “protein combining” in the first edition of her book Diet For A Small Planet(1971), retracted that theory in the book’s 1981 edition:

In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein … was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought.

With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food diet. The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). Fortunately, relatively few people in the world try to survive on diets in which these foods are virtually the sole source of calories. In all other diets, if people are getting enough calories, they are virtually certain of getting enough protein. [Emphasis mine.]

The other group of plant protein critics are those who believe its quality to be low. They usually reference the “Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score,” which is a tool for measuring protein digestibility in humans. A quick glance at the list and you may conclude that plant-based protein sources are indeed inferior to milk, eggs, and beef. After all, the only plant-based food with a “perfect” score of 1.0 is soy protein, while chickpeas get a 0.78 and vegetables get a 0.73. However, as with the “complete vs. incomplete protein” argument, as long as you eat different types of plant-based foods throughout the course of the day, they will complement each other and form a “perfect” protein score.

As a nutrition professional, I get very frustrated by the protein-centric framework that inevitably comes up when plant-based eating is discussed, particularly because the average American consumes sufficient protein, but nowhere near the daily recommended amounts of fiber and several important minerals, like magnesium. Low intakes of both are associated with higher risks of chronic disease. And, here’s an indisputable fact: No matter how humane, local, pastured, or organic your steak or chicken is, it does not offer fiber or significant levels of magnesium. Vegetarian sources of protein, meanwhile (nuts, seeds, beans, whole grains, pseudograins, and vegetables) are good — and in some cases, excellent — sources of both.

Never heard of “pseudograins” before? Though cooked and consumed like grains, amaranth, buckwheat, millet, quinoa, and wild rice are seeds.

Most people erroneously think proper nutrition is mainly about vitamins and minerals, but there is a whole other world within the plant kingdom: phytonutrients. These chemical compounds, which we are learning more about with each passing year, are not present in animal products. But, they occur naturally in plant-based foods. These compounds give fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains their particular colors and aromas. Added bonus: They also confer their own sets of health benefits.

Quercetin — a phytonutrient found in apple peels, onions, and tea — is believed to improve blood cholesterol levels and help lower the risk of some cancers. Research on isothiocyanates, abundant in dark leafy greens, has also demonstrated their capacity to help protect against chronic disease. Other popular phytonutrients include lignans (in flax and sesame seeds) and phenolic acids (peanuts, walnuts). Mind you, there are over 170 phytochemicals in a single orange.

Phytonutrients are sensitive to processing, which is why they are most abundant in whole, plant-based foods (think a diced apple in a salad rather than a glass of commercial apple juice). Most importantly, phytonutrients are relatively new to the field of nutrition, so there are many still yet to be discovered and studied.

As you can see, plant-based foods are more than just meat and protein substitutes. We must stop treating meat as the nutritional golden standard, especially since so-called “alternatives” offer an array of health-promoting compounds. The United States is in the grips of a nutritional deficit disorder that would be drastically minimized if we all started eating less meat and more plants.

One final note: Vitamin B12 is not present in plant-based foods. Fortunately, it can easily be fortified in foods and supplemented. The unique biochemical makeup of plant-based foods, however, cannot be replicated in a pill. Not only are there thousands of phytonutrients, but research has shown they need to operate within their original food matrix to be efficient (aka, isolate them and they get separation anxiety and can’t function right).

So by all means, cut back on animal protein and eat more whole, plant-based foods — it’s good for both bodies of water and human bodies!

Now that the French fry ad has been debunked as PR spin, let’s see what other ads this campaign brings. A “CAFO to fork” story about its beef that attempts to pass off genetically modified corn feed for cows as “natural”? Stay tuned.

Filed under: Food]]>http://grist.org/food/2011-12-19-mcdonalds-rings-in-2012-with-farmwashing/feed/4potato_farmer.jpgConfessions of a former Big Food executivehttp://grist.org/food/2011-11-02-confessions-of-a-big-food-executive/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed_andybellatti
http://grist.org/food/2011-11-02-confessions-of-a-big-food-executive/#commentsWed, 02 Nov 2011 18:25:39 +0000http://www.grist.org/article/2011-11-02-confessions-of-a-big-food-executive/]]>Photo: Casey V. PhotographyA few weeks ago, I learned of a relatively new blog about food industry deception, but with an interesting twist. The blog’s author is Bruce Bradley, who spent over 15 years as a food marketer at companies like General Mills, Pillsbury, and Nabisco. He has since, in his words, “become more educated about the risks and environmental impact of eating processed foods,” and is now a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) enthusiast.

Recently, I had the chance to ask Mr. Bradley about the industry, his blog, and the people behind today’s processed food companies.

Q.On your website you write that you’ve “seen some disturbing trends in the food industry over the past 20 years.” What have you found most insidious?

A. The landscape has changed dramatically since I started my career at Nabisco in 1992. In response to Wall Street profit pressures and the growing power of retailers like Walmart, the food industry has undergone a tremendous wave of consolidation and cost cutting.

This has hurt our food supply in many ways. First, huge, multinational food companies now dominate the landscape. Wielding far greater lobbying power and much deeper pockets, these companies have been very successful in stagnating food regulation. Second, cost savings have been a key profit driver for the industry, but they’ve had a devastating impact on both food quality and food safety. Think factory farming and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), just to name a couple of examples. Third, as consumers’ health concerns have increased, processed food manufacturers have become even more aggressive in making dubious health claims or co-opting fad diets to market their brands and develop new products.

The net impact of this transformed landscape has been disastrous from a public health perspective — with obesity rates skyrocketing and a never-ending flood of food recalls.

Q.How does the food industry respond to those in the public health and nutrition arena who systematically call them out? Is there is a legitimate fear that one day “the people” will realize how unhealthy many of their products are?

A. The average person working at a food company doesn’t view public health and nutrition “food cops” as a threat. In fact, they are embracing many of the ideas coming from these sources. For example, books like Michael Pollan’sThe Omnivore’s Dilemma were extremely popular when I was at General Mills, and I learned about CSAs from a Research & Development scientist working on one of my teams.

Now if you’re talking about the Big Food company executives, I do think they feel threatened. However, most of these executives tend to dismiss those who “call them out” as wrong or misinformed, versus taking a serious look at changing their business model. After all, these executives and their companies have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo.

Q.On your blog you say, “confusion is one of the tried and true tools of the processed foods industry.” Can you say more about the subtle and not-so-subtle ways these companies confuse us?

A. I think one of the main ways the processed food industry is trying to grow and defend their business is by funding self-serving research. The goal of these studies isn’t to uncover “the truth” or to improve public health. Instead, the research is carefully constructed to create sound bites and statistics to help market their products or combat potential regulation. This is one of the primary ways we end up with conflicting studies that confuse consumers on what they should eat or drink.

Is this purposeful misdirection? Intent is always tough to prove, especially if you don’t have firsthand knowledge. Research tends to be the work of a select few within processed food companies, and I was never part of one of those groups. That said, if you dig into these studies and their methodology, you can usually find the telltale signs of how they have “stacked the deck” in their favor.

Q.As a registered dietitian, I am very disappointed by fellow RDs who choose to work for the likes of PepsiCo and Wendy’s. Have you ever felt disappointed by the behaviors of any of your food industry peers?

A. I’d be remiss if I didn’t note my response is biased; not too long ago I was one of those people who worked at a Big Food company. But would I like to see more people from within the food industry take a stand for real food? Yes, I would. Nevertheless, my experience is that the vast majority of employees are good, honest people who are simply trying to “play by the rules of the game” set by food industry leaders, their lobbyists, and our government.

I prefer to focus my efforts on increasing awareness that the rules of the game aren’t protecting consumers. Changing the rules is my objective, and I’m hopeful that along the way my blog and my book, Fat Profits, will help convince people from all walks of life, including those who work at Big Food companies, to join me and take a stand for real food.

Q.What are three things you think every consumer should know about Big Food?

A.

Big Food is profit-driven. Don’t be fooled into thinking a brand or the food company that owns it cares about you or your health.

Think critically. Most claims and advertising by Big Food companies are meant to manipulate you, not educate you. Read your labels and do your research.

There is no free lunch. Over the long-term, you always get what you pay for. Cheap food is very expensive once you add up the true costs — like the taxes you pay to subsidize Big Food companies, health consequences like obesity or diabetes, the devastating harm to our environment, and the inhumane treatment of animals raised within the industrialized food system.

Many of us are familiar with Monsanto the seed giant, but who knew the company was making a new ready-to-eat packaged broccoli? The new product is called Beneforté, and it quietly launched last October. This vegetable is not genetically modified (i.e. no pesticides were engineered into its genes), but rather a hybrid of commercial broccoli with a variety native to southern Italy.

Advertised with a “naturally better broccoli” tag line, the selling point pitched at the health conscious is that “it boosts the body’s antioxidant enzymes at least 2 times more than other broccoli.” Specifically, one serving of Beneforté broccoli “naturally contains 2 – 3 times the phytonutrient glucoraphanin [a type of glucosinolate] as a serving of other leading broccoli varieties produced under similar growing conditions.”

“Similar growing conditions” — there’s an interesting tidbit. For all we know, then, Beneforté’s glucopharanin content could pale in comparison to that of organic broccoli. Of course, this obsession with glucoraphanin is a silly and myopic distraction. Broccoli, by virtue of being a vegetable, is healthful and does not need to be improved upon. None of the myriad of chronic health issues affecting millions of Americans are due to “faulty broccoli” with low levels of glucoraphanin.

The biggest irony of this product lies in Monsanto’s claim that Beneforté “help[s] maintain your body’s defenses against the damage of environmental pollutants and free radicals.”

Environmental pollutants? As in, the ones that have have increased exponentially as a result of genetic engineering? A 2009 report [PDF] by The Organic Center, titled “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years” concluded: “the most striking finding is that GE crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996- 2008).”

As the Environmental Working Group points out, herbicides “cause a litany of health effects, including cancer, birth defects, and disruption of the endocrine (hormone) system.” And we’re talking about an additional 383 million pounds solely attributed to bio-engineered seeds like the ones Monsanto offers. Let’s also not forget Monsanto’s “global pollution legacy“, as the folks at SourceWatch so brilliantly put it.

There is no reason for broccoli to become a “value added” food product. Let’s treat it with dignity and appreciate its worth as a vegetable. And, above all, let’s not allow Monsanto to get away with gimmicky healthwashing. Despite what they may want you to think, supporting organic, sustainable agriculture — and, whenever possible, your local farmers — is still much more important for your health and that of the planet than purchasing trademarked “naturally better broccoli.”